Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 5663
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GUDDU NISHAD – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/32830/2022
The presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies when a woman dies within seven years of her marriage and there is no evidence to suggest that she was not harassed or abused by her husband or his family members.
Headnote:
BAIL - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 113-B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - PRESUMPTION OF DOWRY DEATH
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Guddu Nishad, was arrested and charged with dowry death, murder, and other offenses in connection with the death of his wife, Rangeeta. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his family members harassed and abused Rangeeta, leading to her suicide. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that Rangeeta committed suicide due to his illicit relationship with another woman.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the applicant admitted to having an illicit relationship with another woman and that Rangeeta was aware of this relationship. The court also noted that Rangeeta died within seven years of her marriage and that there was no evidence to suggest that she was not harassed or abused by the applicant and his family members.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in light of the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applied in this case because Rangeeta died within seven years of her marriage and there was no evidence to suggest that she was not harassed or abused by the applicant and his family members. The court also noted that the applicant's admission of his illicit relationship with another woman supported the prosecution's case that Rangeeta was harassed and abused.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applicant's bail application, finding that there were no good grounds to release him on bail.
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32830 of 2022
Applicant :- Guddu Nishad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Pavan Kishore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime
No. 0571 of 2020, under sections 498-A, 304-B,
316, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District
Sant Kabir Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail
during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, informant-Shiv
Shankar, brother of deceased-Rangeeta has
lodged an FIR on 17.09.2020 with regard to an
incident which took place on 16.09.2020 against
the applicant-Guddu Nishad (husband of the
deceased), mother, two unmarried sisters and
Neelam (bhabhi of accused-Guddu Nishad) making
allegation inter-alia that the marriage of his sister
was solemnized with the applicant three years
back. On 16.09.2020 at about 12:00 o'clock,
applicant informed that his sister has committed
suicide. On reaching the house of the applicant, he
saw that his sister has received injuries. FIR
further alleges that from the wedlock of the
applicant and deceased, a male baby was born
who was presently aged about one year and she
was also pregnant. The allegation has been
levelled that the accused persons used to beat
and harass his sister because the applicant was
having illicit relation with his bhabhi Neelam,
therefore, the accused persons after committing
the murder of his sister, hanged her.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant
that in this case after culmination of the
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted
against the present applicant Guddu Nishad and
Neelam. It is next argued that Neelam has been
granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2021 passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23788 of
2021. The applicant neither harassed the
deceased nor made any demand of dowry. The
allegation levelled against the applicant with
regard to demand of dowry is false but the
allegation levelled against the applicant regarding
illicit relation with Neelam is correct. The averment
in this regard has been mentioned in paragraph
no. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application which is reproduced herein below :-
"22. That in fact real story is that due to illicit relationship
of the applicant alongwith one Neelam, deceased was
annoyed and frustrated and in annoyance and frustration
she consumed insecticide kept in the house for protection
and preserving the grains."
Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the applicant that there is no chance of the
applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process
or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The
applicant has no previous criminal antecedents to
his credit and is languishing in jail since
23.12.2021 and in case, the applicant is released
on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed
the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending
that during post-mortem of the deceased, viscera
was preserved and in viscera report dated
12.02.2021, aluminium phosphide poison was
found. The deceased has died her unnatural death
within seven years of her marriage in her
matrimonial home, therefore, considering the
gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
examined the matter in its entirety, I find that
deceased died her unnatural death. The applicant
in paragraph no. 22, as noted above, has admitted
his illicit relation with Neelam and it
